ჟურნალი „სჯანი“ არის საქართველოში გამომავალი ყოველწლიური სამეცნიერო ჟურნალი ლიტერატურის თეორიასა და შედარებით ლიტერატურათმცოდნეობაში. ჟურნალ „სჯანში“ იბეჭდება ნაშრომები, რომლებიც მოიცავს თანამედროვე ლიტერატურათმცოდნეობისათვის აქტუალურ თემებსა და პრობლემებს, მნიშვნელოვან გამოკვლევათა ჯერ გამოუქვეყნებელ შედეგებს.
Georgian Comparative Literature Association (GCLA)
ფორმალური ანალიზი და ლიტერატურის ისტორია
ომარ კალაბრეზეს „ნეობაროკო: დროთა ნიშანი“
მარქსისა და ენგელსის შრომები ესთეტიკის შესახებ
ქართული დრამა ევროპულ დრამატულ მატრიცაში
The article discusses Irma Ratiani’s monograph “Poetics of Drama with a Georgian Accent,” which makes a significant contribution to the theoretical understanding of Georgian drama. The work reviews the development of Western dramatic theory and, in this context, highlights the uniqueness of Georgian drama. The author emphasizes that Georgian drama, moving beyond its local context, has entered the transnational cultural space and become an organic part of the European dramatic tradition. The monograph provides in-depth analysis of Georgian dramatic texts – such as those by Aleksandre Qazbegi, Ilia Chavchavadze, and Konstantine Gamsakhurdia – through the lens of global theoretical and philosophical frameworks. The study demonstrates how drama serves as a tool for social and cultural analysis and shows how Georgian theatre reflects the country's historical, political, and identity-related issues. The work introduces new terms, including “dramatic prose” and “Georgian social comedy,” which open up *new directions for literary research. The author also examines Soviet absurdism as a unique phenomenon distinct from Western models – not just as a philosophical experiment, but as a form of social and political critique.
Konstantine Bregadze, Associate Professor at Tbilisi State University, is a well-known and trusted scholar in the field of Georgian literary studies. His research focuses on Georgian-German literary processes, reflected in his significant books and publications: "German Romanticism" (2012), "Georgian Modernism (Grigol Robakidze, Konstantine Gamsakhurdia, Galaktion Tabidze)" (2013), "Modern and Modernism" (2018), and "Two Essays on Goethe" (2022). The latter is particularly noteworthy in Prof. Bregadze's research "repertoire," as it serves as a kind of prologue to his deeper engagement with the infinite world of Goethe's ideas and forms – soon followed by his 638-page study "Goethe's Faust: Symbolism and Poetics" (2024), which stands as his Magnum Opus. In this monograph, Prof. Bregadze examines in a multi- faceted and complex manner the intricate issues embedded in the "Faustian" corpus, including: the poetics of the tragedy, the essence and worldview of Faust as a character, the symbolism of Mephistopheles as a primordial cosmic force, the character of Gretchen and sexual morality, the concept of Eros, the understanding of freedom, education, intertextuality, and more. Beyond the "spinal column" of the study, the monograph's introduction is also remarkable, where the author, through philological-philosophical critical analysis, undertakes a critical-historical revision of various "Faustian paradigms" written in the past by notable Georgian and East German scholars. He proposes a repositioning of Georgian Goethe studies and Faustology within the orbit of contemporary Western European literary criticism. Of course, a single review cannot fully convey the scope, depth, and interdisciplinary richness of Prof. Bregadze's Magnum Opus, filled with competent and academically rigorous analysis that aligns with the finest traditions of Goethean and Faustian scholarship – yet with uniquely Georgian nuances. The transition into the Western European literary-critical tradition is perhaps best exemplified in Chapter Seven of Prof. Bregadze's nine-chapter monograph. His variations on Goethe's vision of modernity and the premonition of the modern age in Faust are not only reliable, engaging, and academically significant, but also serve as a "box" of new research ideas. Particularly notable is the part analyzing the laboratory scene (the "creation" of Homunculus), filled with complex symbolic and poetic interpretation, which directly engages with the issues of cloning in the modern world. This section resonates strongly with technoscientific advancements born in the modern and postmodern era, as well as with posthumanist thought. In this sense, Faust emerges as one of the most important literary and artistic sources for the new world – concerning human cloning, the "creation" of artificial humans (humanoid androids), the development of artificial intelligence, and the birth of utopian and dystopian worlds.
მოდერნისტული მეთოდოლოგიის კვალი პოსტმოდერნისტულ მსოფლმხედველობაში
The process of leaving modernism from the arena of cultural life continued. Some of its directions appeared in the post-regime. From the twenties of the last century until the end of the sixties, this kind of cultural excess was seen many times. The reason for these "returns" was not the only uniquely established specialization/ profile one specific culture or country to a specific current but also a certain methodological crisis, which led to such a formal-worldview attitude. The final replacement of these processes with a new couture - expressive format began after postmodernist trends appeared in art, primarily in literature. Since then, the "methodological reading" and definition of postmodernism in today's reality is a subject of discussion, and its definition is not unambiguous. It is a fact, that the modernist context in European literary life clearly outlined the opposition: high literature/mass literature; In other words, gaining success in the broad circles of readers practically did not mean high-quality, highly artistic text, such a position was a kind of starting point for the proponents of the modernist worldview and for exposing the opponents of modernism and for emphasizing its role in the history of art. Thus, elite and mass literatures faced each other. Highlighted from the beginning despite the features and emphasized oppositionality, the postmodernist model could not overcome the traditions of modernism for a long time and could not solve the task announced by the writer to the reader - made it enjoyable for the reader relationship with the work of art; Because for modern readers of that time It was not natural such self-creative and rigid challenges, To adapt the role of co-author, co-character in a highly contradictory postmodernist environment. As a result, the view was formed that, despite the names, modernist classics did not have a special influence on postmodernism, although it undoubtedly took from modernism at least a retrospective and external formal heritage. In different geographical areas, this heritage is connected with the complex and contradictory political and social reality, as well as with the processes of searching for forms of expression in the literary space. And if modernism was based on idealism and reason, postmodernism was born as a result of skepticism and doubt of reason. It questioned the idea that there is a universal certainty or truth. Postmodern art relied on the new “philosophical interpretations” of the middle and late twentieth century and argued that individual experience and the interpretation of subjective experience were more concrete than abstract principles. Whereas when modernists advocated clarity and a concrete, purposeful expression of their worldview choices, postmodernism embraced complex and often contradictory layers of meaning. Postmodernism transferred its indifferent attitude towards values and traditions to literature, where it managed to develop its own model and artisticcreative reflections. In deconstruction, in order to get from uncertainty-ambiguity to the answer, the reader had to find the right path himself, and the factors that hindered this were fragmentation, decanonization and superficiality. Despite the aforementioned features and emphasized oppositionality, the postmodernist model could not overcome the traditions of modernism for a long time and could not solve the task set by the writer for the reader – to make the reader's relationship with the work pleasant for the reader; because for modern readers of that time, it was not natural to recognize such self-creative and rigid challenges to adapt to the role of co-author, co-character in a rather contradictory postmodernist environment. Analysts of postmodernism (Wittstock, Welsch, Lyotard) believe that the reasons for this should be sought in the peculiarities of the development of the literatures of different countries. World War II somewhat delayed the emergence and understanding of new trends in cultural life, and the mental, worldview and moral crisis of the post-war period led to a recall of the modernist idea of perception of the world and a return to it. The literary process was still required to be moralistic, to reinforce thought and dignity, and not just to be entertaining. Thus, the interrupted chronology of modernism, if the tradition was revived, the post-facts of modernism appeared, in different directions, in different geographical environments. These limits reveal how much commissioned Postmodernist literature from modernist literature. Postmodernist creative discourse is so tied to the leading ideas of modernism as innovation and experimentation. At the same time, it is directed against the norms of modernism, which have already become a tradition. In view of the above, the early phase of postmodernist literature is, at the same time, both modernist and anti-modernist. It is modernist because it follows the specific principles of modernism, and it is anti-modernist because it emphatically tries to overcome the past creative era and deliberately opposes the artisticcreative principles of classical modernism.
ნიკოლოზ ბარათაშვილი და დასავლური რომანტიზმი
Outwardly, 19th-century Georgia was cut off from Europe, creating the impression that: Russia fed on the scraps of European socio-literary thought, while Georgia – with its monarchy abolished and transformed into southern Russian governorates – fed on the scraps of those scraps. However, thanks to deep internal processes: The 1832 conspiracy would prove to be the blood of the blood and flesh of the flesh of that series of romantic uprisings that followed one another across Europe. And Georgian Romanticism, as a literary movement, would emerge as a direct offshoot of the Western Romantic spirit, an essential link in a unified romantic chain. This would be most vividly and tangibly manifested in the work of Nikoloz Baratashvili, the pinnacle of Georgian romantic thought, as seen in his poetic and epistolary legacy. That is why this seemingly small work, yet monumental in its internal scope, reveals the characteristics that were typical of European romantics. And therefore, the essay would highlight the intersections of the Georgian creator's poetic and philosophical thought with: Novalis, Giacomo Leopardi, Lord Byron. In the West, Romanticism emerged through opposition and open conflict with Classicism. In Georgia, however, it had to assert itself by breaking free from Eastern aesthetic sensibilities and influences. Against the broader backdrop of Georgian Romantic literature, Nikoloz Baratashvili had to distinguish himself as a writer fundamentally turned inward – toward the depths of his inner world. For this reason, he was inevitably drawn to Romanticism, even if the prevailing spirit of the time had taken a different direction. A core principle of Romantic theory and the art of living asserts that the individual and the universe, life and history, require polarity – a dynamic tension between opposing forces through which energy flows. Since history wavers between the positive pole of the ideal and the negative pole of a reality that consistently falls short of it, the attempt to reconcile the real with the ideal has never ceased – nor could it – through any final resolution or synthesis. Within this framework, the darker aspects of existence – illness, madness, death – must be acknowledged as a necessary counterbalance. For the art of living implies precisely this: that creators must not shy away from confronting them. Romantic writers moved between these polarities, and Baratashvili, by translating this movement into poetic language, became an integral part of the European Romantic current. Like his spiritual counterparts in the West, he was not to see polarity as a threat to life, but rather as its essential condition. From this perspective, it becomes irrelevant to ask which of the opposing views expressed in his works – including The Fate of Kartli – more accurately reflects the author’s true stance. Both perspectives are equally valid; otherwise, the necessity of polarity would be undermined, and the distinct nature of Romantic thought would vanish. Special consideration should be given to the relationship between Nikoloz Baratashvili and Lord Byron, particularly in light of the unusual figure of Napoleon Bonaparte as a hero of the Romantic era. Romantic writers often looked with undisguised admiration – even envy – at those who did not write novels on paper as they did, but instead lived them in real life. These individuals "wrote" their stories through their very existence, inscribing meaning into the fabric of everyday reality. Romanticism set before itself fantastical and often implausible goals – so improbable that others would dismiss them as delusions, even mock them. Yet time and again, what once seemed unreachable would be realized. Such fulfillment was made possible through the unrelenting will and determination of the individual – qualities that deeply fascinated Romantic creators. They would turn these exceptional figures into the heroes of their lyrical and epic works, imagining them as monumental embodiments of the human spirit. One such Romantic, monumental hero was Napoleon Bonaparte, whose greatness was acknowledged even by Lord Byron – despite the fact that, to Byron’s native England, Napoleon appeared chiefly as a conqueror. Byron famously likened himself to Napoleon within the realm of poetic creation, calling himself “the grand Napoleon of the realms of rhyme.” Nikoloz Baratashvili’s poem “Napoleon”, presented as an inner monologue of the French emperor, stands out for its originality. The poet envisioned Napoleon as a perpetually dissatisfied soul, tormented by intense inner and outer conflicts. He became a symbolic figure – an embodiment of humanity’s “vessel never to be filled”, tormented by spiritual unrest and a will so boundless it even envied fate itself. As Baratashvili writes: ”Who knows – perhaps even fate, grown weary of his soul, shall crown another beneath the shadow of his name.” The line the poet places in Napoleon’s mouth powerfully encapsulates Romantic maximalism: “Let even the grave be cramped for me – should fate bestow my crown on one like me.” This declaration reflects a desire to accomplish such unprecedented deeds that no future generation could hope to repeat them. It is emphasized that: Nikoloz Baratashvili did not intuitively show a mysterious resemblance to his Western counterparts; rather, he had Solomon Dodashvili as a guide to that artistic and philosophical world. Dodashvili was one of the founders of Georgian Europeanism, the ideologist of the 1832 uprising, and an excellent connoisseur of Western philosophical movements. Solomon Dodashvili was recognized as one of the Russian Empire’s leading authorities on German philosophy – particularly the works of Immanuel Kant. The parallels between Kantian thought and Baratashvili’s poetic worldview likely arose from the poet’s exposure to these ideas, most probably introduced to him through Dodashvili. Two phenomena famously filled Kant with awe: The starry heavens above us and the moral law within us. Both found poetic expression in Baratashvili’s verse – cosmic wonder in “Dusk Upon Mtatsminda”, and moral reflection in “Meditations by the Mtkvari”. In the former, the aesthetic vision echoes Kant’s conception of the sublime and the limits of human reason when confronted with the infinite. The latter engages with timeless questions of human existence and purpose. While this poem has often been linked to Ecclesiastes, on a broader scale it reflects a Faustian theme – an eternal striving to define meaning and value within the human condition. A key conduit between Baratashvili’s aesthetic worldview and Kantian ethics appears to be Nikolai Karamzin’s “Letters of a Russian Traveler”. This work, a stylized account of his European journey, became a kind of encyclopedic window into Western life. Dodashvili held “Letters” in the highest regard, ranking Karamzin alongside Aristotle, Demosthenes, and Cicero. And understandably so: in this elegant, accessible prose, the profound ideas of the sage of Königsberg – Kant – were rendered approachable to a broader audience, including those who would later immerse themselves in the complexities of his original texts. These philosophical ideas – whether absorbed through spiritual affinity or deliberate engagement – found vivid poetic expression in the works of Nikoloz Baratashvili, enriching Georgian Romanticism with a deep ethical and intellectual resonance.
ფარერის ლიტერატურა: სკანდინავიური, დანიური თუ ეროვნული
ფარერის კუნძულები პატარა ქვეყანაა, რომელიც ატლანტის ოკეანის შუაგულში მდებარეობს და დანიის სამეფოს ნაწილია. ფარერული ენა ისლანდიური ენის მსგავსია და სკანდინავიურ ენებს მიეკუთვნება, თუმცა, მას მე-19 საუკუნის დასაწყისამდე, წერილობითი ფორმა არ ჰქონია. სამაგიეროდ, ფარერის კუნძულებზე მდიდარი ფოლკლორული ტრადიციაა შემორჩენილი. ფარერული ლიტერატურის ისტორია შედარებით მოკლეა. პირველი წიგნი მე-19 საუკუნის ბოლოს გამოიცა. ფარერელი მწერლები, ტრადიციულად, როგორც დანიურ, ასევე ფარერულ ენებზე წერდნენ; მათი შემოქმედების მნიშვნელოვან ასპექტს ეროვნული შინაარსი წარმოადგენს. ფარერული ლიტერატურა ასახავს ფარერის კუნძულებზე ყოველდღიურ ცხოვრებას და იქ მცხოვრები ადამიანების ტიპებს. უილიამ ჰაინეზენი იყო პირველი საერთაშორისოდ ცნობილი ფარერელი ავტორი, რომელიც დანიურ ენაზე წერდა და მისი ნაწარმოებები დანიური ლიტერატურის ნაწილად ითვლება. მისგან განსხვავებით, ჰედინ ბრუ თავის რომანებსა და მოთხრობებს, რომლებიც თარგმნილია დანიურ და სხვა ევროპულ ენებზე, მხოლოდ ფარერულ ენაზე წერდა. თანამედროვე ფარერელი მწერლები ისწრაფვიან შექმნან ორიგინალური ეროვნული ლიტერატურული ფორმები, რომლებიც განსხვავდება დანიური ლიტერატურისგან. ახლა, ერთ-ერთი ყველაზე საკამათო საკითხია, შევიტანოთ თუ არა დანიურ ენაზე დაწერილი ნაწარმოებები ფარერული ლიტერატურის ნაწილად.
მეფე დიმიტრი თავდადებული და „მეფე დიმიტრი თავდადებული“: ისტორიული მონაცემები და ლიტერატურული თხრობა
In the long poem, „King Dimitri the Self-Sacrificer“ (1877-1879), written by Ilia Chavchavadze, three attitudes towards the intention of the devoted king were outlined: first, that it is necessary to protect the dignity of the nation and the king, as the embodiment of the nation; second, that every Christian person is obliged to save his soul, which may require sacrificing himself for another person, which represents the implementation of the highest Christian virtue; third, that the duty of the supreme ruler is different from the duty of others, which is why he is obliged to take care of the daily needs of the nation and, moreover, to govern, lead, and direct the life of the nation. For his part, King Dimitri makes an unwavering decision and chooses self- sacrifice, dedication to others, as the duty that is closest to the vision of a representative of the Christian faith, a clergyman, a high priest. Later, in captivity, while praying, the king asks God that the sacrifice he made may not serve to save his soul – he does not ask for retribution, since he refuses to receive spiritual benefits in return for his spiritual merit. Dimitri fervently asks that his personal sacrifice, the life he gave as a martyr, be used not for his own benefit, but only for his people, his subjects. Thus, ultimately, the physical sacrifice is accompanied by a spiritual sacrifice: the king gives up his own life to save the lives of others, but he also gives up the salvation of his own soul, again for the benefit of others. It is noteworthy that the three views reflected in the poem and their clear separation from each other are entirely the poet's own – this section of the work represents the embodiment of Ilia Chavchavadze's creative imagination. The point is that in the historian-chronicler's narrative, the response and attitude towards the king's decision are unified, no one separates the points of view that are somewhat different from each other. Compared to and in contrast to the historical chronicle, it is noteworthy that Ilia Chavchavadze decided to distinguish between different attitudes towards King Dimitri's intentions, to sacrifice himself to save the lives of his subjects, and to have the trial itself take place before the sovereign left his homeland, so that neither he nor others would make an unpopular decision. At this time, on the one hand, the supreme authority stands, and on the other, representatives of different strata of the nation, and the difference in points of view allowed the poet, immediately after announcing Dimitri's plan, to show three different views, which, presumably, according to the author's plan, express three different situations and different ratios of values in the public environment: if for warriors, represented by nobles and military leaders, the decisive value is courage, perseverance, and steadfastness, the denial of which will only bring shame to both the supreme person of the state and its people; the Christian clergy clearly foresees the immeasurable spiritual value of self-sacrifice to save the lives of others, which, from a Christian point of view, is considered the clearest manifestation of religious devotion; but a representative of ordinary people, that is, the lower strata, an old man, is ready to easily sacrifice even his own sons. For the common goal, for the country, for the head of state (who is the representative of the country), he nevertheless reminds King Dimitri of his necessary public duty to his subjects – a duty that, as the old man believes, the king is neglecting by abandoning the country and the people, which is why he does not approve of the sovereign's decision of personal heroism, because this old man, as a representative of the majority of the country, speaks on behalf of and with responsibility for a united assembly, that is, the nation. It is conceivable that the indignation expressed in liberal-left public circles of the last quarter of the nineteenth century due to the fact that Ilia Chavchavadze dedicated his new work, the poem „King Dimitri the Self-Sacrificer“, – moreover, written almost two decades after the previous poem (“A Few Pictures, or Episodes from the Life of a Robber”, 1860), which clearly expressed the revolutionary-violent spirit, this time to the brilliant face of a historical ruler, to the glorification of a kingmartyr, was caused not only by the fact that the hero of the poem was a monarch, but rather by the fact that the work not only presents to the reader, but also artistically exalts an outstanding personality and outstanding heroism, personal decision and personal sacrifice, which is precisely what is alien or unacceptable to any collectivist ideology. It seems that Ilia Chavchavadze took into account the environment or perception of the poem's readers to some extent, which is why the poet considered it necessary to introduce among the characters of the work a representative of the simple, unenlightened people, about whom the chronicler says absolutely nothing and who had something special to say in the poem, not only to the king, but also, in general, about the king and his duties. In addition, there is one more circumstance worth considering: although Ilia Chavchavadze expressed his reproach or grief (shortly before „King Dimitri the Self- Sacrificer“ was written and shortly after „King Dimitri the Self-Sacrificer“ was written) that the Georgian chronicles describe only the lives of kings and that the life of the nation is less visible on the pages of the chronicles (which, apparently, refers to the daily life of ordinary people), and such a narrative, based on his consciousness and attitude, did not completely captivate him, nevertheless, he himself created a poem about the king, which depicts the noble life and devoted actions of the supreme ruler, ending with his violent but voluntary death. Furthermore, Ilia Chavchavadze, in general, doubted the value of historical chronicles, but the main sections of his poem completely (often literally) coincide with the chronicle narrative. However, it should also be said that the poet rejected both the extensive and meticulous presentation of the historical setting of the event, and the in-depth presentation of the hero’s face, including the king’s numerous arbitrariness, treason, and abduction, which are so clearly described by the chronicler in his „Hundred-Year Chronicle“. When perceiving a broad picture of Ilia Chavchavadze’s personal and creative development, the poet’s writing and publication of „King Dimitri the Self-Sacrificer“ indicates the writer and figure’s gradual shift towards more conservative values and his increasing distance from Russian revolutionary-radical ideology, his return to national history and national tradition, which was so clearly expressed in this famous work. It cannot be disputed that later, in the formation of the public heroic image of Dimitri the Self-Sacrificer, the decisive importance was played not so much by the information preserved in historical chronicles as by the work of Ilia Chavchavadze, „King Dimitri the Self-Sacrificer“ whose poetic vision and inspiring influence firmly established themselves in Georgian public and cultural-intellectual life, including in academic research.
„პიღასი“, „აფროსინელთა შინა სიტყუა“, „თასისა ირაკლისის“
It is widely known that in the "Life of Kartli" there is a lot of material related to the Greco-Roman world, which was studied by both the publishers of the text and other famous scientists. The relatively late text of "Life of Kartli" is particularly distinguished by its variety of depictions of antiquity, the author of which we know as the Anonymous Chronicler, and his work – under the conditional title "The Hundred Years’ Chronicle". Despite the fact that a number of important studies have been dedicated to commenting on passages depicting antiquity, the definition of several terms and contexts, by the scientists' own admission, could not be achieved due to the distortion of the text or the mistakes of copyists. The article presents an attempt to read and interpret just a few of these so-called an "obscure" passage in a new way, based on which the content of the text and the meaning of several terms related to antiquity become clear, which, naturally, is important for the correct understanding of the context of the works. These Passages are: 1. “Eristavi Samadavla, a man gifted with all kinds of military virtues and a chosen archer, like the Jew Mosomakhos, or the chosen Neoptolemeos Pighas of glorious tutor of the Myrmidons”. Until now, the meaning of the word "Pighas" was not determined, which made it difficult to fully understand the content of the sentence. We believe that "Pighas" is a scribal error and should be replaced by “Pighos” – in late Byzantine Greek pronunciation of word "Pyrrhus", the second name of the son of Achilles – Neoptolemus. My proposed reading of the text easily explains the moment why the author connects the name of Neoptolemos with "Pyrrhus" and also with such a phrase as "of glorious tutor of Myrmidons” (i.e. Achilles, E.K.), because another Neoptolemus is also known in history, in particular – the leading warriors in the army of Alexander the Great. Those Pyrrhus descended from the Aeacids, the kings of Epirus (Arr. Anab. ii.27). Also, it is noteworthy that there was another Pyrrhus, the king of Epirus (319/318-272 BC) and "Pyrrhus of Neoptolemus" without the special definition "of glorious tutor of the Myrmidons" the reader could understand that Neoptolemus, a descendant of Pyrrhus, king of Epirus, is mentioned here. It is worth noting that Pyrrhus, in the form of "Pviro" can also be seen in the "Fables of the Hellenes", in particular in the work "Judgments of Julian the First". It is said about Priam's daughter Polyxene that Achilles, fascinated by her, was fatally wounded by Paris with an arrow in the temple of Apollo. It is important that Pyrrhus is also mentioned by 12th century poet Chakhrukhadze. In “Tamariani”, Chakhrukhadze says in praise of Tamar's son, Lasha Giorgi, that he is “a new Pyrrhus”. Thus, it turns out that the tradition of comparing with Neoptolemus existed in Georgian fiction as early as the 12th century, which was repeated by the Anonymous Chronicler two centuries later in connection with another character. 2. “But it is written, as in Aphrosinians writings, someone tells, that fights with Antipatros and young Cassandros killed him”. Despite numerous attempts, the word "Aphrosinians" could not be understood correctly, which is why the essence of the sentence remained unclear. We believe that this section of the work, which provides information about the death of Alexander the Great, is related to the following phrase a few paragraphs later: „But it is said that he may have been poisoned by his wife Esukan as it is said by one writer („viTar sityჳsmoqmedi ityჳs“) of the Macedonian, to whom, having a headache and being in thought was given a poison by Midos and Antipatros“. First of all, we are convinced by the fact that, as T. Kaukhchishvili notes that the text is incomprehensible, because it is not clear who fought with Antipatros and who was killed by Kassandros. Thus the text should be restored as follows: „But it is said that he may have been poisoned by his wife Esukan as it is said by one writer of the Macedonian, to whom, having a headache and being in thought was given a poison by Midos and Antipatros, But it is written, as in Aphrosinians writings, someone tells, that fights with Antipatros and young Cassandros killed him”. In case of such correction or "filling" of the text, it becomes clear that there are two versions and two sources about Alexander's murder. Conditional "opposition" is more clearly defined – “one writer (sityჳsmoqmedi)” and other– “Aphrosinians writings” It is difficult to say who is meant in this particular case as the "the writer", however, based on the fact that P. Ingorokva believes that this story is taken from Alexander's novel, it is highly probable that the Chronicler here refers to Pseudo-Callisthenes. As for the meaning of "Aphrosinians", it is noteworthy that this source is not created by any "word maker" – historian or writer. I think this refers to the "Ephemerides" – Ἀλεξάνδρου ἐφημερίδων βιβλία (in ancient Georgian “efemeridni“), the diaries of Alexander's exploits, which were written by the king's private secretaries, Eumenes of Kardia and Diodotos of Erythrai. Thus, most likely, "Lies among the Aphrosinians" refers to "Alexander's book of Ephemerides", the existence of which could have been known to the Chronicler through various sources, it is also possible to assume that the name of this book was distorted by the Chronicler himself (because he knew it from oral transmission) or by the copyist. 3. “And it was said that he was poisoned by his wife Esukan, as the writer says about the Great Macedonian, who had a headache and was in thought, who feasted at the evening and drank the cup of Irakli. they say that Esukan took vengeance on him for putting to death Basil of Ujarma for his dishonorable behavior: Basil committed adultery with Esukan and dishonored the King's bed, and threw off his cassock, and stole the power. And for this dishonor, Basil was put to death”. This passage can be seen in a relatively recently discovered two-page manuscript (H-1067) of the writings of Chronicles, which was published in 2009 and describes the fact of the poisoning of David Ulu by his wife, Esukni, which is compared to the death of Alexander the Great. In my opinion, this passage has been misunderstood and interpreted by the publisher, who thinks that it refers to Deianira poisoning Heracles out of jealousy. Thus, as V. Silogava explains, "jealousy, on the basis of which this happened, is compared to the poisoning and murder of the greatest mythological hero of the ancient world, Herakles ("Iraklis"), as well as jealousy-based poisoning." It is not clear which jealousy is being discussed when in the text it is clearly indicated that Esukni was not jealous of David, but committed the murder of revenge of her lover Basil of Ujarma, who was killed by the king. Here, the problem is caused by the wrong interpretation of "iWvisa" (which is not "jealousy" at all, but, according to the "The Dictionary of Ancient Georgian Language” (Il. Abuladze): "conscience", "thought"; "expectation") and again the wrong understanding of the context. In addition, "being in thought" is addressed not to Irakli, but to Alexander the Great. As fascinating as it is to see the myth of Deianira and Heracles here, it is impossible given the structure and content of the sentence. In my opinion, in this case we are dealing with the information preserved in the sources about the death of Alexander (which originates from the "Ephemerides"), according to which Alexander was poisoned when he emptied a large cup full of undiluted wine in honor of Heracles (Iust. 12.13.7; Plut. Alex., 75.3; Ar. 7.24.4-25.1; Diod. XVII, 117).
აღმოსავლური ტექსტი როგორც მხატვრული რეფლექსიის დიალოგური სტრუქტურის რეკონსტრუქციის ინსტრუმენტი მიხეილ ლერმონტოვის გვიანდელ ლირიკაში
One of the pressing tasks of modern literary comparative studies is the investigation of the logic underlying the formation of artistic consciousness and reflection as one of the principles of self-development. In this regard, the problem of M. Y. Lermontov’s artistic interpretation of the theme of East and Eastern culture, despite longstanding scholarly interest, has not yet exhausted its potential within academic discourse. This article, based on the material of Lermontov’s "Eastern works" in his lyric poetry (“The Dispute,” “The Dream,” “The Cliff”, “They Loved Each Other...,” “Tamara,” “The Meeting,” “The Leaf”), examines the logic of the evolution of the poet’s artistic world in the context of his search for originality within the Russian-Western-Eastern artistic interaction. A comparative analysis of the artistic conceptualization of this theme in the works of Russian and European authors contemporary to Lermontov will help to distinguish and comprehend both the universal and the creatively individual aspects of addressing the issues related to reflexive world perception and its relativistic functions in the mature period of Lermontov’s work. An analysis of Lermontov's works devoted to the East led to the following conclusion. If the literature of Russian Romanticism admired the masquerade and carnival side of the East (V. Kuchelbecker, F. Glinka, V.A. Zhukovsky and many others), while Lermontov, following Pushkin, gradually formed a synthesis of East and West in his work – a specific bi-national perception of the world reflected in the artistic text. Here we can mention Goethe's "Western-Oriental Sofa", in which the German poet anticipated the appearance of oriental and, specifically, Muslim hyper- text in the literatures of Western Europe. Russian Russian literature has included a significant part of Lermontov's work as a consolidation of oriental codes that function in the structure of the Russian romantic style within a framework similar to Goethe's strategy of "effortless connection of West and East." The object of study is the reflexive type of consciousness as one of the fundamental principles of image creation and meaning generation in Lermontov’s lyric poetry. The methodological framework of the research is based on the works of M. M. Bakhtin, A. F. Losev, Yu. M. Lotman, R. Barthes, M. Foucault, J. Derrida, G. Delouse, J. Kristeva, and others. Among scholars engaged in the study of the reflexive function of art, the term “artistic reflection” has not yet become canonical, as a comprehensive definition and an in-depth study of this type of reflection are still lacking. Within the chosen research theme – Lermontov’s Oriental lyric poetry – particular interest lies in the dialogical aspect of artistic reflection, which in this article is proposed to be understood as an artistic dialogue in the mode of unity between the individual and the universal in artistic experience. In such a dialogue, a "meeting" and creative interaction of individual consciousness’s occur through the perception of artistic works. The analysis conducted of the dialogical structure of artistic reflection leads to the following conclusions: The essence of artistic reflection in Lermontov’s works consists in structuring the givens of sensory perception and elements of imagination in accordance with their existential-aesthetic experience within a special meaning-of-life context, which is significant for the author. The primary levels of artistic reflection in Lermontov’s "Eastern" works are image and structure, which ensure the typification of vital phenomena. The artistic work, as a model of the author's "image of the East-West world," creates the phenomenon of artistic dialogue unity of the individual and the universal in artistic experience. The content-related levels of such a dialogue include image, concept, semantic dominance, and artistic myth, at each of which a "meeting" of different conscious- ness’s and a creative "augmentation" of meaning take place. "The Eastern text in the works of late Lermontov is a far from unambiguous phenomenon. It is the result of the conceptualization of Oriental motifs within the context of the author's interpretation of the foundations of world history and culture, as well as the assimilation of Oriental trends of the Romantic era in literature, journalism, and public consciousness of the 1830s-1840s."
„პატარა ადამიანისა“ და დეჰუმანიზაციის პარადიგმა ფიოდორ დოსტოევსკის, ვაჟა-ფშაველასა და ფრანც კაფკას მოთხრობებში
From the second half of the 19th century, during the period of the so-called late modern and into the 20th century, dehumanization and alienation emerged as prominent themes in art. The process of dehumanization is also reflected in the paradigm of the ”little man”, which originated from the 19th century Russian literature. These tendencies gave rise to the shared thematic concerns in the writings of the 19th century classical and 20th century modernist authors. The article is going to discuss the short stories by Fyodor Dostoevsky, Vazha-Pshavela, and Franz Kafka, whose protagonists are developed from the image of the “little man”, established in Russian literature, and recurring motifs from these works are going to be identified. Our aim is to highlight the paradigm of dehumanization of the late modern period from the "little man” to modernist literature, and to underscore Vazha-Pshavela’s unique position within this artistic and intellectual framework. Vazha-Pshavela’s short story “The Death of Bagrat Zakharich” (1889) fully presents the paradigm of the “little man”, with all its associated problems. This story reveals a conceptual affinity with Dostoevsky’s “The Crocodile” (1865). Both works extend beyond the theme of the “little man” to address the more universal issue of dehumanization. In these stories, the problem of transformation of the human being into a mechanized figure within a consumerist society forms a literary-semantic paradigm that connects with Franz Kafka’s modernist short story “Metamorphosis” (1915). Numerous scholars have explored Kafka’s works in relation to that of Gogol, Dostoevsky, and Chekhov from various perspectives. These authors, in turn, influenced Vazha-Pshavela, who was deeply familiar with Russian literature. Therefore, when comparing Vazha-Pshavela’s prose with Franz Kafka’s, it is essential to consider the context of Russian literature. In the selected short stories, the paradigm of dehumanization is constructed through the following motifs: 1. Professional duty and pragmatism have precedence above all other values; 2. Following from this, the central figure in each protagonist’s life is their superior, who is the object of their most intense emotional experiences; 3. A bureaucratic-bourgeois system creates an environment uniting Ivan Matveich, Bagrat Zakharich and Gregor Samsa. In this world, where rank, social status and economic condition are paramount, unconditional personal values are absent; 4. Within this value system, family relations are also dehumanized and devoid of genuine affection; 5. Vazha’s and Kafka’s texts share striking similarity in terms of artistic treatment. The circumstances and characters unfold in such a way that the history of Bagrat Zakharich’s family seems to be continued by the family of Gregor Samsa; 6. In all three stories, objects become extensions of the characters’ very being. Consequently, the authors deliberately distance these objects from the protagonists, as their existence comes to an end; 7. The meaning of these texts is shaped by the character’s fears and supposed “fearlessness”. In the stories of Vazha-Pshavela and Fyodor Dostoevsky the fear about social condition is presented as an unconscious escape route from an existential dread; 8. In all three texts, silence/order serves as a barrier against the spiritual noise, existential anxiety and crisis which may ultimately lead a person to a metamorphosis. While Ivan and Bagrat are inclined to such silence/order, and their transformation is still distant, Gregor disrupts the dehumanized system by his spiritual needs and existential unrest. Consequently, his environment pressures him to conform to order and restriction; 9. All three writers transform protagonists’ spiritual and psychological liminality into an absurd image. By this metamorphosis, their existence becomes intimately bound to death; 10. In Vazha’s and Kafka’s stories, the character's portraits convey their core nostalgic identity. While for Bagrat Zakharich it lies in his work as a clerical official, for Gregor Samsa it is his human past. Under the influence of Nikolai Gogol, certain literary tendencies emerged in Dostoevsky’s and Vazha-Pshavela’s works. These tendencies, shaped once again by Gogol and Dostoevsky, were later transformed in the writings of Franz Kafka. This process gave rise to a paradigm that traces a trajectory from the “little man” to the dehumanized protagonist of European literature, a tradition to which “The Death of Bagrat Zakharich” belongs. “The death of Bagrat Zakharich” and “The Crocodile” raise a universal issue through the image of the “little man”. Through exaggeration and absurdity, and by framing the theme in philosophical terms, these stories satirically depict a dehumanized person of a dehumanized society, a human entirely devoid of spirituality. Vazha-Pshavela’s and Franz Kafka’s stories share not only artistic details, but also elements of plot development: 1. Both writers employ character portraits with the same artistic function, to present their nostalgic and longed-for selves 2. They depict similar family situations, which seem to create a single, continuous narrative: 2.1 Bagrat Zakharich is presented as a pre-Gregor Samsa figure not only through literary genesis. He particularly resembles Samsa’s father in terms of appearance and personality, and through his attitude towards his work and his daughter; 2.2. Bagrat and Gregor also share familial responsibilities. The former is burdened by having no heir, while the latter by an inherited debt, the compensation of which defines the course of his life; 3. These texts also share similar endings: 3.1. At the end of both stories writers describe how quickly and indifferently family members grieve the deceased ones and move on focusing on the future; 3.2. Through the death of the protagonists, both authors depict the resolution of their fears, creating an atmosphere of peace and serenity. Vazha-Pshavela’s short story “The Death of Bagrat Zakharich” holds critical significance in Georgian literary studies. It brings together the theme of the “little man” from 19th century Russian literature with the issue of the late modern period of European literature. His dehumanized protagonist, emerging from the “little man”, becomes an embodiment of the global spiritual crisis of the era. At a time when Georgian literature remains largely confined to narrow national and social issues, “The Death of Bagrat Zakharich”, not only through its influences, but also through the author’s original perspective, engages with the major literary movements of its time.
ანრი ბარბიუსის მემკვიდრეობა ქართულ საბჭოთა კულტურულ სივრცეში
This paper explores the influence and reflection of the French writer Henri Barbusse’s literary and sociopolitical activities within the Georgian cultural space. It presents a comparative analysis of his works and how they were perceived in Soviet Georgia. Henri Barbusse emerged in the literary field in the 1890s as a symbolist poet, later becoming the author of neo-naturalist novels and psychological short stories, as well as a publicist and political figure. World War I radically transformed his worldview. He volunteered for the front in 1914 as a true pacifist. The social-economic crises and the subsequent rise of fascism convinced him that there was no visible solution – thus he turned his hopes toward the events unfolding in the first socialist state, Soviet Russia. The paper analyzes Barbusse’s impressions of his travels in Georgia and the Georgian translations of his works. It also evaluates how the Georgian press reacted to his writing and visits. In the late 1920s, the Soviet authorities made particular efforts to attract Western intellectuals and cultural figures in order to portray socialism as a global success. Barbusse was one of the first intellectuals to depict the Soviet Union as the symbol of a “new world.” His literary and publicist activities contributed to the reinforcement of Soviet socialism. His deep ties to communist ideo- logy are clearly reflected in his works; however, at the same time, he also vividly portrays the brutal reality of imperialist militarism. At that time, speaking out against war was considered a betrayal of national interests and provoked nationalist outrage – such as in the case of Jean Jaurès’ assassination. Barbusse was one of the first in European literature to depict the cruelty of war in his novel Le Feu (Under Fire) and psychological stories, revealing the harsh and absurd conditions on the frontlines. Barbusse’s travelogue “This is What They Did to Georgia,” written after his October 1927 visit to Georgia, unfortunately does not objectively reflect the ideological pressure and dire socio-economic conditions in the country at the time. Party workers accompanied him everywhere, providing fabricated and glorified reports of success. The text contains inaccuracies about the First Democratic Republic of Georgia, which can be considered slanderous. The Georgian intelligentsia was divided in response to his visit: supporters of the Soviet regime (Platon Kikodze, Silibistro Todria, Tedo Sakhokia, Aristo Chumbadze) endorsed Barbusse’s evaluations and believed in the restoration of justice and equality under the Soviet system. Opponents, including émigrés (e.g., David Sharashidze), harshly criticized him, while others avoided expressing opinions. These differing attitudes influenced how his works were translated and interpreted, and how his political and literary contributions were addressed in essays and critiques. Barbusse’s novel Le Feu (Under Fire) was first translated into Georgian in 1923 by Tedo Sakhokia (with a second edition in 1930). His short stories were translated by Aristo Chumbadze in 1930, successfully capturing the tone and style of the original. Barbusse’s poetic vocabulary, use of antithesis, grotesque, irony, and sarcasm were preserved. Aristo Chumbadze, a brilliant stylist, produced translations that are both natural and refined, maintaining syntactical harmony with the original. During the 1950s–1970s, Barbusse’s 1914 collection of psychological short stories drew attention from Georgian writers and readers. The stories are grouped around themes: 1. Fate; 2. Mad love; 3. Compassion. Many translations were published in Tbilisi-based and regional journals and newspapers. Roena Kenia’s translations such as La Tendresse, Hallali, Le Vrai Juge (The True Judge), Le Premier Amour (First Love), and Le Frère (The Brother)—are noted for their artistic quality and fidelity to the original. The paper also presents a typological analysis comparing Henri Barbusse’s and Sergo Kldiashvili’s attitudes toward World War I and their respective works: Barbusse’s novel Under Fire and story “One Weeps, Another Laughs,” with Kldiashvili’s Ashes and “The Goblin Boys.” Regrettably, Henri Barbusse failed to see the persecution of the Georgian intelligentsia and the ideological control over culture. He contributed to the integration of Georgian literature into socialist aesthetics and brought Georgian writers closer to European proletarian literature. Barbusse did not envision any better way out of the crisis of his time and blindly believed that democracy could only be expanded through revolution. Nevertheless, it must be emphasized that his novel Under Fire is an anti-war work that no political agenda can justify. His psychological stories are not ideologically driven; rather, they are filled with compassion for humanity and a deep desire to reveal human nature and promote goodness.
ლიტერატურა და სხეული დავით ქართველიშვილის რომანის, „მეგაპოლისი და ფიზიკური პირები“ კონტექსტში
This study is neither a sociological nor a poetic analysis of literature. Rather, it focuses on the contextual dimension in which technogenic modernity absorbs and internalizes the historical roots of culture, transforming both the human being and their reality. The research aims to explore how contemporary Georgian literature reflects the crises of human existence and culture – how these transformations are represented within it. In this respect, the very notion of “modernity” is problematized from the outset: literature is not merely a product or artifact of its time; it is time itself – its structural dimension and a mode of experiencing it. Within this problematic framework, special attention is given to Davit Kartvelishvili’s novel ,,La Quartet“1 (2023). The theoretical foundation of the analysis draws on phenomenological and hermeneutic paradigms (Heidegger, Merleau-Ponty, Ricœur): time, body, and literary text are interpreted as interwoven structures, each carrying a shared crisis-oriented intentionality. In this context, Kartvelishvili’s novel – which constitutes a new aesthetic in contemporary Georgian literature – is approached as both a deconstruction of temporal and cultural crisis and an alternative reality. This reality belongs neither to the matrix of history nor to the familiar tradition of writing, and as such, offers the reader a possible way out of crisis. A central focus of the study is the crisis of the body. The body is treated as an anthropological marker of both civilizational maturity and decline—one that, under the conditions of technogenic humanism, has become a disembedded, historically disoriented, and physically lost individual in the megapolis. In today’s world, the body appears as a performative and cyber-reflexive phenomenon, while physical relationships – once a mode of social coexistence – are replaced by the virtual. Under these circumstances, the individual finds the body and its cognitive and physical capacities insufficient. At the same time, this body is dehumanized by social pressure, reduced to a mere biological entity struggling for survival – deprived of the consciousness of trauma. Such a condition leaves the individual without a story, without a narrative that could bind existence to cultural identity or generate political awareness of shared experience. In Kartvelishvili’s novel, the individual – now reduced to a mere “physical person” – bears precisely this burden: the weight of ontological emptiness. What drives the character is the everyday struggle for physical survival. In such a reality, the individual becomes an emptiness of identity, for their “history” is reduced to the repetition of everyday life, while the deeper roots of consciousness and memory are no longer accessible. As a result, the individual becomes rigid toward affect, as their entire psychic and physiological capacity is consumed by the imperative of mere physical endurance. In this sense, the body emerges as a biosocial form of life anima- ted not by metaphysical meaning, but by intraphysical impulses – bounded, in the end, by the very limits of the body. The study further interrogates the cultural significance of trauma as a mode of experience. Human beings are, in this perspective, “children of trauma” – born through it, and shaped by its existential unfolding throughout life. Without trauma, the individual remains an empty being or body, incapable of registering experience or forming narrative. Trauma binds together personal and historical identity. In the novel, this problem is foregrounded in the lives of two key characters: a transgender migrant named Meri and an elderly Jewish couple. The latter are united by a shared trauma – both personal and historical – that grants their past the meaning of identity, unity, and collective history. When love is absent, it is trauma that holds together the threads of human and political meaning, thus becoming the foundation for a cultural-historical narrative. In Meri’s case, however, who survives through daily labor in a foreign land, trauma has not yet become history or narrative. It remains merely a story – a raw telling – because trauma, as an imprint of reality, requires a context – an enemy and a friend – that would allow it to be shaped into narrative and prevent it from being reduced to a banal symptom of suffering. Neither exile nor the caricatured figure of the mercantile aunt offering a profitable marriage suffices to accomplish this transformation. What is needed is another loss – one that marks both the end of the novel and the beginning (or possibility) of a story, one that bears the impulse of birth, trauma, and self-consciousness, because survival without such a story is no longer possible. But that is already another narrative – another (meta)fictional possibility. One of the novel’s many layers of political irony concerns the modern mythology of success. Success, in the late modern condition, is a subtle strategy for compensating frustration and the loss of those existential elements – love and trauma – that once gave personal identity its deeper meaning. As for the novel’s poetics, its compositional structure is linear, which the author himself describes as a sequence of links. There is no central plot, no romantic storyline. Rather, the narrative is constructed as a non-sequential chain of loosely connected fragments. The novel’s conceptual and structural composition is an allusion to Dante’s ,,Divine Comedy“: in the capitalist inferno of the “City of Angels“ (Political irony about Los Angeles), the protagonist is followed by the ghost of Franklin, just as Dante is guided by Virgil. And just as hope is meaningless at the gates of Dante’s hell, so too is it at the threshold of the American paradise.
ა. ს. პუშკინის 1829 წლის კავკასიური მოგზაურობის პერიოდის ტექსტებისა და „ბრინჯაოს მხედრის“ შედარებითი ანალიზი
წინამდებარე კვლევა წარმოადგენს პუშკინის 1829 წლის ივნისიდან სექტემბრის ბოლომდე კავკასიაში მოგზაურობისადმი მიძღვნილი ნაწარმოებებისა და მისი ეპიკური პოემის – „ბრინჯაოს მხედრის“ შედარებით ანალიზს. ამ დროს იგი შეხვდა გადასახლებაში მყოფ დეკაბრისტებს და მოგვიანებით შექმნა ნაწარმოებები, რომლებიც შთაგონებულია მისი მოგზაურობის შთაბეჭდილებებით, რომელთა საფუძველზე, პოეტმა დაწერა „კავკასიის სერიის“ სახელით ცნობილი მთელი რიგი ლირიკული ლექსებისა და პოეტური ფრაგმენტებისა, რომლებიც ასახავს რეგიონის პეიზაჟებს 1830 წლის, ბოლდინოს პირველი შემოდგომის პეიოდში. 1835 წელს კი პუშკინმა გამოაქვეყნა მოგზაურობის დღიური, სახელწოდებით „მოგზაურობა არზრუმში 1829 წლის კამპანიის დროს“. ამ მოგზაურობის დღიურის შესწავლა გადამწყვეტია „სე- რიის“ განვითარების გასაგებად, რადგან ის გვაწვდის აუცილებელ ფონურ ინფორმაციას. „სერიის“ ლექსები მოიცავს მოტივებსა და ეპიზოდებს „ბიბლიის დაბადების წიგნიდან“, ასევე მოტივებსა და სტრუქტურულ ელემენტებს „ღვთაებ- რივი კომედიიდან“. „სერია“ არა მხოლოდ შეიცავს დეკაბრისტების ლექსებზე მინიშნებებს, არამედ დერჟავინის „ჩანჩქერის“ გამოძახილსაც. ბიბლიიდან და სხვადასხვა ლიტერატურული ნაწარმოებებიდან აღებული ეს ინტერტექსტუალური ელემენტები პარალელურია პოეტის მიერ ოთხი წლის შემდეგ დასრულებული პოემის, „ბრინჯაოს მხედრის“ პოეტურ სამყაროში არსებულ ელემენტებთან, მოტივებთან და სტრუქტურასთან. ზემოხსენებული ნაწარმოებებისა და „ბრინჯაოს მხედრის“ შედარებითი ანალიზი ავლენს, რომ პუშკინის 1829 წელს კავკასიაში მოგზაურობა მისი მომავალი შედევრის შექმნისთვის გადამწყვეტ მოსამზადებელ ფაზას წარმოადგენდა. წინამდებარე წერილის ავტორი მიმართავს შედარებით ანალიზს, რომელიც რამდენიმე ძირითად ასპექტზეა ფოკუსირებული. პირველ რიგში, განიხილავს პოემას „კავკასია“, რომელშიც პანორამული მთის ლანდშაფტი მოგვაგონებს „ღვთაებრივ კომედიაში“ ასახულ კოსმიურ ერთიანობას. როგორც დანტეს კლასიკაში, „არწივისა“ და „მხეცის“ სიმბოლური გამოჩენები წარმოადგენს სამოთხისა და ჯოჯოხეთის იერარქიულ სფეროებს. გარდა ამისა, ნაჩვენებია რომ პოემაში „მონასტერი ყაზბეგზე“ მოხსენიებულია წარღვნისა და ნოეს კიდობნის ისტორია. მთის წვერზე მდებარე მონასტერსა და ბნელ, ვიწრო, ციხის მსგავს ხეობებს შორის ვერტიკალური კონტრასტი გამოიყენება ზეციური და ჯოჯოხეთური სფეროების იერარქიის მისანიშნებად. ასეთი იერარქია ასევე აშკარაა პოეტურ ფრაგმენტებში „აჰა, ბნელი კლდეების ხეობა“ და „საშინელი და დამღლელია“. და ბოლოს, მკვლევრის მტკიცებით, პოემის „ზვავის“ შექმნისას, პუშკინი განზრახ იყენებს აკუსტიკურ ეფექტებს რადგან, შთაგონებულია დერჟავინის „ჩანჩქერით“. „ზვავის“ მარტივი სიუჟეტი ასევე პარალელურია „ბრინჯაოს მხედრის“ სიუჟეტთან, რომელშიც მშვიდობა და შერიგება წესრიგის დანგრევას მოჰყვება. როგორც ზემოთ აღინიშნა, პუშკინის 1829 წელს კავკასიაში მოგზაურობისა შედეგად დაბადებული მრავალი ნაწარმოებისა და „ბრინჯაოს მხედრის“ შედარებითი ანალიზი ხელს უწყობს პოეტის შედევრის რთული ინტერტექსტუალურობისა და სტრუქტურის გარკვევას.
კავკასიის საცენზურო კომიტეტის მიზნები და ამოცანები
The Caucasus Censorship Committee, from the day of its establishment (December 18, 1848) until its renaming (on October 24, 1905, the censorship committees of the Russian Empire were renamed as "Printing Affairs Committees") and beyond, served as one of the primary mechanisms for maintaining the empire. It was closely connected to various administrative and punitive bodies of Tsarism. The purpose of the Caucasus Censorship Committee was to control printed material, recognizing the immense influence the written word has on society and its readers. From the empire's perspective and philosophy, strict control over printed materials was deemed essential. The structure of the imperial mechanism can be visualized as follows: the Emperor (the sole ruler at the head of the empire), the Governor-General or Viceroy (the representative of the Russian Empire in a specific region, with authority over all institutions in the area), the Viceroy’s Chancellery, the Ministry of Internal Affairs, the Governor, the Vice-Governor, the Caucasus Censorship Committee, the police, the judiciary, customs offices, printing houses, libraries and reading rooms, bookstores, theaters, writers or publicists, and finally, the readers (or audience). The primary directives for control originated from the Emperor. Secondary authority alternated between the Viceroy’s Chancellery and the Ministry of Internal Affairs. For any printed material to be published (books, brochures, articles, journals, or other types of printed matter), approval had to be sought from the Governor. The Governor would then forward the request, along with additional materials (e.g., in the case of a journal, the editor’s personal information and program), to the Caucasus Censorship Committee. This committee operated based on the statutes on “Printing Affairs,” prepared by the Viceroy’s Chancellery on the Emperor's orders, supplemented by circulars. The censor would review the submitted material and provide their opinion (whether publication should be permitted or prohibited), sending their decision back to the Viceroy’s Chancellery, which would, in turn, respond to the Governor’s request. Additionally, alphabetical lists of prohibited and permitted literature were compiled and sent monthly, in several copies, to all censorship committees across the empire. These lists were periodically updated and republished with additional entries. The Caucasus Censorship Committee takes measures to ensure that prohibited publications or banned foreign literature do not inadvertently reach readers or appear for sale. To achieve this, it utilizes various means to make these restrictions public: the prohibitions are sent to local police and governors, who are obligated to monitor compliance. Additionally, bans are disseminated through the main printing office's journal, “Book Chronicle”, which publishes both an "Alphabetical List of Prohibited Books" and an "Alphabetical List of Works Reviewed (and Prohibited) by Foreign Censorship." The frequency of these publications underscores the vigilance of censorship to ensure that the imperial dictatorship's laws are upheld. Prohibitions are quickly communicated to bookstore owners, public libraries, reading rooms, distributors, and sales supervisors. The police periodically inspect these lower levels of distribution, conducting searches, confiscating banned literature, and destroying it. If prohibited materials are discovered in an institution, the establishment's owner is referred to the courts. This system forms an extensive mechanism of imperial dictatorship, overseen by the Minister of Internal Affairs. The Caucasus Censorship Committee also maintains active engagement with customs authorities. Notably, Georgia serves as a transit country, and books entering Georgia's customs points via transit are inspected by the committee before being forwarded to their destinations in Russia and the Caucasus. Customs officials send all forms of printed materials (including drawings, maps, sheet music, and photographs) to the censorship committee, and parcels are not delivered to their owners until approval is granted. The review process can be quite lengthy. The committee also maintains a journal where all printed or handwritten books and publications submitted for review are meticulously recorded. Each entry includes extracts noting when the review took place, in the presence of which censors, and the accompanying resolutions. Permission for any periodical publication is granted by the Censorship Committee in accordance with censorship laws, but it also aligns with the empire's objectives, specifically promoting the "Russian element" and advancing regional education through the adoption of the Russian language. While the development of journals and newspapers in local languages is considered necessary for the progress of local populations, the empire does not favor the expansion of such publications. These periodicals are required to operate at their own expense, and their editors are expected to be relatively educated and "well-disposed" (Authors note: naturally, toward the empire). Additionally, censorship for local publications, particularly in the provinces, is stricter and more meticulous. Beyond printed material, the Caucasus Censorship Committee also evaluates educational curricula, as these programs form the foundation for developing textbooks. Religious materials are reviewed in collaboration with the highest religious authorities of the respective faiths, who provide conclusions on the appropriateness of the content. The Georgian Orthodox Church is an exception, as it is overseen by a Russian exarch who does not know the Georgian language. Consequently, Georgian- language religious materials are reviewed by a teacher specifically appointed for this purpose by the theological seminary. This underscores the unequal treatment of Georgians and other ethnic groups in religious matters, a topic frequently discussed in the Georgian press. Later, the Censorship Committee established separate branches for specific areas, such as medical, military, and theatrical censorship. Military matters were subject to particularly strict scrutiny, with bans on publishing information about troop movements unless officially announced by the government. Medical, artistic, and musical fields also faced rigorous censorship. Publications about the conditions of theological schools, the harsh economic circumstances and oppression in certain regions, unlawful court decisions, revolutionary activities, unrest at universities or other higher institutions, interethnic conflicts, sexual freedom, or suicide were prohibited. Additionally, information about members of the imperial family could not be published without renewed approval from the Minister of the Imperial Court. Insulting an official was punishable by hol- ding the newspaper editor personally accountable under Article 68 of the Censorship Committee's statute. From July 9, 1896, the publication of any information regarding the appointment or transfer of state officials was banned in local periodicals. It is noteworthy that from 1848 until the 1960s and 70s, the materials related to literary works stored in the Caucasian Censorship Committee's archive are very limited, mainly consisting of the committee’s documents, including permits, prohibitions, and customs records for incoming materials. However, starting from the 1970s, alongside the activation of the press and theater, the archive began to hold records of materials that were submitted for review. The 1980s and 1990s stand out for a particular surge in activity. Although theatrical censorship as a specific field was separated starting in 1879, it was based on the censorship law for dramatic works passed by the State Council on April 6, 1865, which stipulated that all dramatic works intended for performance in theaters must be sent to the Main Department of Printing Affairs for review. The performances of plays approved by censorship were required to be staged according to the censored copies, under the personal responsibility of the theater owner; it was the duty of the police to monitor their accurate execution (including gestures) and prevent any “cynical tricks” during the performance (a special box should be allocated for the police in the theater). The law on dramatic works did not allow any exceptions for clubs, as public gatherings in capitals or provinces attracted far larger audiences than theaters. Therefore, the staging of plays in such venues without dramatic censorship was not permitted. The dramatic censorship system also maintained lists of approved, banned, and temporarily banned plays, which were sent to theater owners and police departments to control the stage performances. In the case of violations, a legal case would be initiated in court. We were particularly interested in the materials banned by censorship, which include some of the finest examples of both literary and journalistic works. The Caucasian Censorship Committee’s archive, organized by years and periodical publications, holds the banned works from the 1880s, which include both literary and journalistic pieces. Their analysis reveals the themes that particularly concerned the Tsarist regime. We also came across dramaturgical texts that were either banned by censorship or altered with red ink. Some of these works are by well-known authors and are still not included in the collected works of their writings today. These texts, in their restored form, are gradually being published by us in an anthology entitled “Banned Materials of the Caucasian Censorship Committee.”